Bolton lightning: “Today’s nomination hearings on John Bolton, the man [Bush] has picked to represent the US at the UN, promise to be lively. Of all Bush’s second term appointments, this has ignited most controversy … Most memorably, he once said it would not make a bit of difference if the UN headquarters building lost 10 storeys.” Updated below. Add your comments below …
Update [2005-4-11 8:32:48 by susanhbu]:
Bolton: Wrong for the UN
April 11, 2005
The Senate begins hearings today on John Bolton, President Bush’s choice for Ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton is clearly the wrong person for the job. His record on international security efforts shows a striking indifference to serious threats facing the U.S. today and contradicts his oath to best protect the American people.
Bolton ignored his responsibility to stop the spread of dangerous nuclear weapons and materials. As Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, Bolton killed an international ban of the production of nuclear materials and opposes the international ban on nuclear testing. According to a Harvard University study published last September, under Bolton’s direction, “less fissile materials were secured in the two years after Sept 11 than in the two years before.” Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment summarized Bolton’s dangerous and ineffective nonproliferation record as follows: “Bolton has been totally unapologetic about his radical prescription for dealing with the proliferation threat. The main problem is that it hasn’t worked anywhere.”
Bolton cared little about the spread of nuclear expertise to terrorists by Pakistani weapons dealer A.Q. Khan. Although Khan was put under house arrest for allegedly putting two nuclear scientists in touch with Osama bin Laden, Bolton seemed to care little to find out what type of nuclear information might have been passed to America’s mortal enemy. Asked by a House panel in March 2004 whether the U.S. had sought access to Dr. Khan, Bolton responded: “We have not asked for access to Mr. Khan, nor do we think we should.”
Bolton failed to take the nuclear threat from Iran seriously. Since revelations about the scope of Iran’s secret nuclear program first emerged in late 2003, Bolton has shown little willingness to deal with the issue. Bolton scorned the very notion of diplomacy with Iran, telling a European conference on the issue, “I don’t do carrots.” President Bush says America should “work with friends” to deal with Iran, but the administration has refused to participate in European led talks, and failed to forge any coherent Iran policy.
From The Guardian:
The Democrats could make life difficult for Bolton at today’s senate hearings. One line of political attack has already emerged. Democrats plan to go into accusations that Bolton is alleged to have tried to get two intelligence analysts fired after they appeared soft on Cuba with assessments that contradicted his position.
Bolton does have his fans though. Don Bandow of the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington thinks that the UN, because of the mess it’s in, needs a serious critic like Bolton, who also understands the institution. One thing is for sure, the sparks will fly in this musty institution if Bolton gets the appointment. Less certain though is whether his blunderbuss approach is going to be effective in bringing the reform the UN badly needs.
Bolton “once called the administration’s rejection of the International Criminal Court as ‘the happiest moment in my government service’.”
So many quotes, so little time.
The more I read about this guy the scarier he sounds, I hope they can fend him off somehow. Why am I not surprised the Cato Ins. loves him, that alone makes you leery.
If you get the chance, there’s a lively debate about Bolton on Democracy Now! today with Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies and Peter Brookes of the Heritage Foundation. (Listen or watch…. transcripts are usually up after about 10:30 AM PDT.)
I just tuned back in to CSPAN. Dodd is grilling Bolton but I don’t know exactly what they’re bickering over.
word for word, on his various condemnations of the U.N. and Bolton just denied he ever said any of that. Kerry said “It’s on tape … would you like me to show you the article? … etc.”
Al Franken’s show did a really good segment this morning on John Bolton.
A series of senators aggressively questioned John R. Bolton today about his qualifications to become the United States ambassador to the United Nations, challenging his past blunt criticisms of the organization, his policy positions, his reported effort to have intelligence analysts reassigned when they disagreed with him, and even his temperament to be one of the country’s most visible ambassadors.
Mr. Bolton, the undersecretary of state for arms control since May 2001, sought through hours of tough questioning at his nomination hearing to soften his past criticism of the United Nations. He said, repeatedly and in many ways, that he would take its importance, and his role there if confirmed, most seriously. He said he had an amicable relationship with Secretary General Kofi Annan.
[……]
“Quite frankly, I’m surprised that the nominee wants the job, given the many negative things he’s said about the U.N.,” said Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the ranking Democrat …
Referring to Mr. Bolton’s confirmation to his current position as undersecretary of state by a 57-to-43 vote, Mr. Biden said, – “I wonder, as I did in 2001, about your diplomatic temperament. You have a habit of belittling your opposition, and even some of your friends.”
Mr. Bolton, sharply questioned and confronted with the texts of several e-mails, acknowledged that when a State Department analyst, Christian Westermann, had challenged parts of a speech that Mr. Bolton wanted to deliver asserting that Cuba had a secret biological weapons program, he complained to the man’s superior.
But, he added, “I in no sense sought to have any discipline imposed on Mr. Westermann.”
If Mr. Bolton had sought the reassignment of Mr. Westermann and another intelligence analyst – both of whom ultimately were shown to be correct in their judgments – “then I don’t think you have a right to serve in a high post,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut.
Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, the moderate Republican senator whose vote could be pivotal on a committee where the nine Republicans hold a one-seat edge over Democrats, was among those pointedly questioning the nominee.
Mr. Chafee questioned Mr. Bolton about his past support for Taiwanese membership in the United Nations General Assembly, a position at odds with American policy and anathema to China. Mr. Bolton said he had revised that position, taken as a private citizen, and now fully aligned himself with the Bush administration’s policy.
Mr. Chafee also said that Mr. Bolton’s sharp comments about the North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, including a particularly critical speech made on the eve of six-party talks over Pyongyang’s nuclear program, “seem to be impeding our progress.”
Only two and a half hours into the hearing did Bolton receive a strong endorsement from a senator … George Allen, Republican of Virginia, …
Even Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the Republican chairman of the committee, appeared in his opening remarks to studiously avoid an outright endorsement of Mr. Bolton.
Mr. Lugar seemed almost to lecture Mr. Bolton about the complicated nature of the United Nations, with successful programs like the World Health Organization and Unicef and failures like the scandal-ridden oil-for-food program; and about the need to marshal broad international backing, even while pursuing reform of the world body.
And Mr. Lugar appeared to offer a gentle rebuke to Mr. Bolton, whose history of plainspoken rhetoric has provided fodder for critics … but has also been praised by supporters who say his tough-talking manner is refreshing and effective.
“In the diplomatic world, neither bluntness nor rhetorical sensitivity is a virtue in itself,” Mr. Lugar said. “There are times when blunt talk serves a policy purpose; other times it does not.”
Mr. Lugar added, “Diplomatic speech by any high-ranking administration official has policy consequences.”
X-posted from other thread
In an unusual blunt remark on topic, Dutch FM Bot [translates to “blunt”] in interview by Dutch NRC newspaper, remarked that for US Congress to go ahead and confirm John Bolton as US ambassador to UN would be “unwise”. FM Bot made his remark to reporter on his last day of his visit to Japan on his travel to China. The question put to him was whether FM Bot would welcome the confirmation of Undersecretary of State and “hawk” Bolton.
FM Bot said: “No. I regard it as an unwise appointment, one I do not understand.”
Bot considers the nomination of Bolton, a criticus of the UN for many years, as a sign that is not positive. “Surely during a phase of reform at the UN, the support from America is necessary to get the UN proposals confirmed,” according to Bernard Bot.
Kyodo News – Dutch FM Bot visit to Japan
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
Getting hot and heavy right now with Kerry and Biden questioning, him.